Big Dogs House

The Staged Question And State Run Media

Jun 23, 2009 Political

Politico reports that it appeared to be a rehearsed question but to anyone else it actually was. The sequence of events and the words used make it clear that Barack Obama (probably his people) staged a question from a person who represented, of all places, the Huffington Post.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.” Politico

This should really come as no surprise. During the primaries many of the questions that were supposed to be from everyday people were actually from surrogates, supporters and people who were working to get a Democrat, particularly Obama, elected.

The White House is moving closer to having state run media. On Wednesday ABC will air a two hour Obama infomercial to push his health care plan. As an aside, look for more of the fear mongering Obama said had to stop.

ABC will not allow opposition commercials or allow people with differing views to participate. The Republicans say this amounts to an in kind political donation. I agree.

I hardly watch ABC (and from the latest news, I am not alone) but this week I am boycotting them. I would like to see quite a few others boycott and cost them money.

Except for Fox News, the MSM is in Obama’s hip pocket. They are not the watchdogs for the public, they are the media wing of the Democratic Party.

Obama should enjoy it now because they will turn on him. It happens all the time.

That might explain why he is rushing so much through. He wants to get it done while the media are helping him.

UPDATE: Hannity reported that the “reporter” in question was called by the White House and asked to ask that question and then he was escorted to where he would sit. So much for openness and transparency. State run media, where the state decides what you should ask.

Share on Facebook

Tags: lies, media bias, Obama, staged question

Obama Looks For Quick Confirmation

May 28, 2009 Political

Now that Obama has selected the anti gun, empathetic, racist Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court he is asking the Senate to make quick work of her confirmation. There is no doubt in my mind she will be confirmed because the Republicans do not have the numbers to stop her. She will only be stopped if there is a major issue or she stumbles. This means that Republicans need to be diligent and take a long hard look at her and her record. They need to do this slowly and deliberately. Obama wants it done quickly before more negatives pop up. We need to take our time and dig as deep as we can.

This judge does not belong on the Supreme Court. Justice is supposed to be blind but she has already admitted that she uses her life experiences to guide her. She does not interpret the Constitution and apply the law, she allows her emotion to dictate her decisions. It is also true that she believes that policy is made in the court which means she lacks an understanding of our system of governance or she does not care about it.

I have demonstrated that she does not understand the Constitution by showing that her view of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that is indisputable. Only people who lack intelligence or wish to rewrite history or enact a personal agenda see it otherwise.

Sotomayor is also a racist. People have been accused of taking her comment out of context but I have read the entire quote. It is racist. The assertion is that she will understand the downtrodden before the court because of her background and because she is a person of color. Does this mean that she could not get decisions right if the dispute involved privileged white men? I mean, if she had been on the court in 2000 would she have to recuse herself from Gore v Bush because she did not live their lives and could not understand their issues?

Or is it more accurate to say that justice is supposed to be blind and that it does not matter what color, nationality, sex, or ethnicity a judge is, the law should be applied equally across the spectrum and that the only experience required to get it right is a thorough understanding of the Constitution? Her comment was racist and those who deny it are the same ones who see racism when a noose is hung at a house on Halloween or when someone says that welfare recipients should get off their lazy butts and get a job. The immediate assumption is that the speaker was talking about minorities. I would ask; who is the racist, the one who made the statement or the one who made the assumption?

Sotomayor seems to think that because she is a Latina with a humble beginning that her experiences will allow her to make better decisions and to get it right more often than some white guy who did not live her life. So did her life experiences lead her to mess up Ricci v. DeStefano? Did she have such a loathing for white people that she decided that they did not deserve the same protection against discrimination as a minority group would? Is there any doubt that if this had been reversed and the blacks were suing that she would have sided with them?

This is the heart of the issue. The law was ignored in Ricci and several very serious Constitutional issue were ignored. Evidently, her life issues did not allow her to get it right and the Supreme Court will likely overturn her decision in the case.

That should not be surprising since 60% of her cases that have gone before the Supreme Court have been overturned. This is but one more indication that she does not understand the law or the Constitution and it puts a big dent in her assertion that she would get it right more often than some white guy. 60% of the time she was wrong and this is just in cases that went to the SCOTUS. How many of her lower court decisions have been overturned?

Sotomayor does not belong on any bench much less the Supreme Court. Republicans need to aggressively push her and dig up all the things that she has done that run counter to the way good law is practiced. She might end up being confirmed but the detailed analysis will demonstrate what Obama is and what he is doing to this country.

We also need to target Democrat Senators from red states who have a fairly conservative base. Make sure the gun issues are well played and ensure the gun owners know. Tell these Senators they will be in danger of losing if they support this person who does not understand our rights.

As for you liberals who are whining that she was attacked from the start, Ted Kennedy attacked Bork within 45 minutes of his selection by Reagan and what Kennedy said was not very nice. Democrats have been nasty and played lots of games with nominees of Republican presidents. Now it is time to ensure this nominee is asked tough questions and that she is asked to explain law and her statements.

Let’s see if she can do it like John Roberts, without notes.

But be careful how you discuss her because the White House is warning to watch what you say about her. Gibbs, the Obama butt boy, said that people who are criticizing her intelligence probably did not graduate number 2 in their classes. I don’t question her intelligence but being smart does not mean she knows the law or is not an activist. There are really smart people who passed law school and they are terrible lawyers.

The National Black Republican Association is not happy with the pick either.

Ann Coulter has a great article up.

Share on Facebook

Tags: activist judge, constitution, hack, law, lies, Obama, sotomayor

Democrats Look At National Sales Tax

May 27, 2009 Political

The Democrats never met a tax they didn’t hike and in these times of excessive spending and out of control government they need to find a new revenue source which is nothing more than a euphemism for taxes. Barack Obama vowed that 95% of us would not see a tax increase, not a dime. Then they raised tobacco taxes. One can debate the evil of tobacco use and whether people quitting is a good thing but the reality is that this was a tax increase mostly on those he said would not pay more.

There are many schemes in the works that will raise taxes of all the people he promised would not see a tax increase. The Cap and Trade will raise the cost of people’s energy because the tax increase to the businesses will be passed down to the consumers. There will be an increase in the gasoline tax or a mileage tax. And Obama is considering taxing the health care benefit provided by some employers. Astute political observers will note that this is the plan John McCain had and that Obama vehemently opposed. He said his plan was better. Looks like he does not think so now. For the record, I am opposed to the idea no matter whose it is.

There is a tax on the table that will certainly cost everyone and that includes the poorest of the poor. This is a national sales tax or a value added tax (VAT).

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families. Washington Post

The article discusses a number of interesting things. Rahm Emanuel’s brother is consulting on this and an admission that Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the rich will NOT pay for what he wants.

He likes the idea of the VAT if they can figure a way for him to keep his promise. I don’t know how one would do that. People who sell goods have no idea how much a person makes so how could the determine who pays it and who does not?

The VAT is a terrible idea. The proponents of it claim that a 10% tax would be wonderful and result in fewer people paying income taxes and a 25% VAT would give them all they want. Of course that means for every $100 you spend on something there will be a tax of $25. A $30,000 car will cost an additional $7,500 to the consumer

The other problem is that government never gets rid of a tax. There will be the VAT and income taxes. The VAT might bring in a lot of money and they will want more so they will raise the percentage they take. It will be a mess and everyone will end up paying despite what Obama promised.

I do not think adding another tax is the answer to our problems. We need to get a handle on out of control spending and we need to limit government. We also need to revamp the tax code so that everyone pays a flat rate on income. The idea that Congress can keep spending and then show up with its hand out looking for more of our money is getting old.

But hold onto your hats because this will be on the table along with a number of other taxes. Obama promised not to tax 95% of the people but that will not happen and many people will be paying more in taxes.

It is absolutely impossible to pay for all this spending without taxing far more people than he promised when he wanted to be in the White House.

Now that he is there it is a different story. Bill Clinton did the same thing.

Some people never learn.

Share on Facebook

Tags: 95%, lies, Obama, taxes, vat

An Out For Pelosi And Others

May 23, 2009 Political

Nancy Pelosi has been embroiled in a dispute over what she knew and when she knew it. She has lied about her knowledge of waterboarding being used and went so far as to claim the CIA lied to her and to Congress and that they lie all the time. She said mislead but as one liberal commenter noted when he discussed Dick Cheney, mislead is a polite way of saying lie.

Pelosi was aware of what was going on but she believed that her involvement would be kept quiet because what she was told was classified information. Unfortunately for her, Obama released the classified information to to discredit the Bush administration but the release swept her up in the process. When the CIA defended itself, it implicated Pelosi and demonstrated that she was a liar.

A former South Korean president has demonstrated a way for her to save face (not the Botox way she is use to) and this method is sure fire. It will remove her from the problem and remove the problem from her. In addition, it will save the American citizens the time this is consuming and the cost associated to determine which he said/she said is the right said.

Former President Roh Moo-hyun, embroiled in a penetrating corruption investigation, leaped to his death Saturday — a shocking fall from grace for a man whose rags-to-riches rise took him from rural poverty to Seoul’s presidential Blue House. He was 62. Yahoo News

This is a great example for Pelosi to follow. She can do the right thing and jump off one of the bridges in her district.

Come to think of it, there are many politicians who could do the same thing in order to make America a better place.

They have to jump off a very high bridge and into water. What they are full of splatters and we don’t need to be cleaning up any more of their messes.

Share on Facebook

Tags: CIA, lies, Pelosi, Roh Moo-hyun, waterboarding

Speaker Of The House Can’t Speak For Herself

May 16, 2009 Political

Nancy Pelosi keeps digging the hole she is in deeper each time she opens her mouth. The video of her trying to lie her way out of the mess shows a flustered person grasping for words that can’t be shown untrue and for words that will appease the people listening. She is in a downward spiral and even though dyed in the wool liberals will defend and support her, America is seeing the true Pelosi. She is a calculating politician who only cares about power.

Case in point; she claimed that she was against the water boarding, that she was not, repeat not, informed about (how can one oppose that which one is unaware) because she was too focused on winning Democratic seats in Congress. That’s right, after 9/11 her concern was winning seats and not national security.

Pelosi has had many, I repeat many, versions of her story and they all contradict each other and they contradict the truth. I believe Hillary would call it a willing suspension of disbelief. According to Pelosi, she did not know, was not, repeat, not informed, heard from someone else, and then knew about it. Along the way she has ticked off more than a few professionals in the intelligence community. You see, Nancy called them liars.

Pelosi is backtracking on her recent claim that the CIA lied to Congress (and her) about the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. She now claims that she meant that the Bush administration was lying to her. I was wondering how long it would take her to follow Obama’s lead and blame it all on Bush. That always seems to get the liberal base all riled up. The problem is, Pelosi clearly blamed the CIA. She is now saying that she did not mean them but her words at the time made it quite clear about whom she was talking. Here is what Pelosi said during her attempted backpedal:

“My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” Pelosi said in a statement. The Hill

The reality is, she blamed the Bush administration AND she called the CIA liars. She specifically said that the CIA misleads Congress ALL THE TIME. She did say the Bush administration misled Congress with regard to weapons of mass destruction but her words directly implicated the administration AND the CIA as liars. If she had only called the people in the Bush administration liars it is unlikely that Panetta would have released the memos and defended the Agency. He had to defend it because Pelosi directly attacked it. Here are a few of her quotes:

Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

“They mislead us all the time,” she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree. Breitbart

“I am saying that the C.I.A. was misleading the Congress and at the same time the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction,” Ms. Pelosi said. The New York Times

Here we have Pelosi clearly calling the CIA liars and saying that they misled Congress while Bush was misleading on WMD (which he was not).

As anyone who is not a Kool Aid drinking liberal can see, Pelosi was clear and she meant what she said but now that she has ticked off the intelligence folks even more, she had to say she only meant the Bush administration. She mentioned them BOTH and there is no doubt about what she meant.

This woman is the Speaker of the House. She can’t even speak for herself.

As my other writer Blake says, she is on medication but to me it looks like she forgot to take it or the dose needs to be increased.

Remember, Pelosi was more concerned with getting Democrats elected than protecting the country or paying attention to her job.

She is a typical Democrat and she needs to step down as Speaker.

Then, the people in San Fran need to vote Gaspy Pelosi out of office.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Bush, CIA, democrat, lies, Obama, Pelosi, water boarding